Do your beliefs imply a Necessary being exists?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Do you need "empirical evidence" to believe the quadratic formula?

Have a look at what I actually said. I think my meaning was clear enough.



You may not agree with my materialist position,but that does not invalid it any more than my disagreement with your views means they are necessarily wrong. However,you are the one making the claims, not me. I assert only I do not believe due to the lack of credible evidence, I make no truth claims. (neither does science)

[CliveStaples]

Are you aware of why it's foolish to conflate logical argument and mathematical proof?

No, since logic is a subset of mathematics. Are there mathematical proofs that aren't logical arguments?

---

Rasmussen makes it quite clear what he means by Essential Being, whether by definition or logical gymnastics makes no difference.

I've played this survey, several times. I can make it come out each of the three ways merely by picking options at random. None of this maps onto anything tangible and I'm not interested in logic for logic's sake. I do enjoy logical problem solving for fun, however, the difference being I know for a fact I'm not expected to pretend they're referring to anything real.

But this isn't "logic for logic's sake". It's showing the logical consequences of certain beliefs.

And for the final time, I have no beliefs regarding gods and related detritus. Necessary Beings are a wasted concept on me.

But nobody's asking you about 'gods and related detritus'. They're asking you the following:

1. Is there a Necessary Being?

If you don't have beliefs on the matter, select "I can't say".

2. Can anything be entirely inside of itself?

Is this somehow related to "gods and related detritus"? Do you have no beliefs with regard to whether anything can be entire inside of itself?

3. Can there be a contingent thing that has no cause?

Is this related to "gods and related detritus"? Do you have no beliefs with regard to whether there can be a contingent thing that has no cause?

4. Can a possible event be impossible to cause?

Is this related to "gods and related detritus"? Do you have no beliefs with regard to whether there can be a a possible event that is impossible to cause?

5. Is it possible that there is anything that has a cause?

Is this related to "gods and related detritus"? Do you have no beliefs with regard to whether there is anything that has a cause?

6. Let P be any property that (i) can begin to be exemplified and (ii) can have instances that have a cause.

Is it thereby possible for there to be something that causes P to begin to be exemplified (by causing a first instance of it)?

For example, 'redness' is a property that began to be exemplified. And it can have instances that have a cause (because there can be red things that have been caused to exist). So, an event that causes the first red thing(s) would thereby cause 'redness' to begin to be exemplified.

7. Is a beginning of the existence of all contingent things (such as in a Big Bang) possible?

8. Suppose X and Y are each possible. If X were actual, would Y still be possible (for any X and Y)?

For example, assume unicorns and pegasusi are both possible. Then if unicorns became actual, would pegasusi remain possible?

Do you have no beliefs with regard to the plausibility of any of these statements? Do you believe these statements are related to "god and related detritus"?

---

I'm surprised that people have no beliefs with regard to statements like "Can there be a contingent thing that has no cause" and "It is possible that there is anything that has a cause".

It's like people think there's some sort of deception occurring if they say, "Yeah, I think that it's possible that there is something that has a cause."

[Reforged]

Find out by taking this short survey!

http://www.necessarybeing.net/

(Taken from http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/...concr.html)


I can't remember exactly what all of my responses were--because I can't remember exactly what all the questions were and in which order--but my beliefs did imply the existence of a necessary being.

Who says existence itself is necessary?

[Cyberman]

But this isn't "logic for logic's sake". It's showing the logical consequences of certain beliefs.

Which I as an atheist do not share, so to channel Matt Dillahunty, why should I give a crap?

And for the final time, I have no beliefs regarding gods and related detritus. Necessary Beings are a wasted concept on me.

But nobody's asking you about 'gods and related detritus'. They're asking you the following:

1. Is there a Necessary Being?

Which Rasmussen's paper, one of the cornerstones of this survey/test remember, informs us is another term for God. Everything else beyond the point at which I cut off your quote flows from this foundation. On the basis of all this, if you want the most honest answer to this question from me, a permanent atheist - and you do seem really interested in my opinion on this - it would be "no" without hesitation.

I hereby retract my original Ackbar reaction (reAcktion?) of a trap in favour of this reassessed position:

---

---

[CliveStaples]

Who says existence itself is necessary?

I don't know...?

---

Which I as an atheist do not share, so to channel Matt Dillahunty, why should I give a crap?

So you have no position with regard to any of the statements in the survey?

You don't believe that there is anything that has a cause?

Which Rasmussen's paper, one of the cornerstones of this survey/test remember, informs us is another term for God. Everything else beyond the point at which I cut off your quote flows from this foundation. On the basis of all this, if you want the most honest answer to this question from me, a permanent atheist - and you do seem really interested in my opinion on this - it would be "no" without hesitation.

It seems like you're unwilling to think through the consequences of your beliefs. That is, you don't want to hear whether your beliefs entail the existence of a Necessary Being, because you think a Necessary Being eventually leads to God, and you don't believe in God.

So you're choosing to remain ignorant, lest you find out that your beliefs entail contradiction.

[Jackalope]

Are you aware of why it's foolish to conflate logical argument and mathematical proof?

No, since logic is a subset of mathematics. Are there mathematical proofs that aren't logical arguments?

Not that I am aware of. However, there are logical arguments which are not mathematical proofs.

I expect that you do not think that math proofs require empirical evidence. Neither do I.

Let's look at the non-mathematical type. Suppose you had an argument that included the proposition "no swans are non-white". To assess the truth value of any conclusion which depended on said proposition, you need to demonstrate the truth of said proposition.

How would you propose to do so without depending on empiricism?

Now do you see the folly in conflating the two?

[Reforged]

Who says existence itself is necessary?

I don't know...?

If you can't prove existence itself is necessary how can you hope to prove a being must necessarily exist?
Without the assumption existence is necessary you can't make the claim a being can necessarily exist.
That'd be like me saying flight doesn't have to be necessary but someone necessarily needs to fly. Claiming the latter must assume the former.
Your entire line of reasoning depends on that assumption.

[Categories+Sheaves]

Neat linky, fun exercise. After ~3 run-throughs I managed to get a weaker result

Congratulations! Your answers appear to have an interesting implication: they imply that you have a (prima facie) reason to think that there is (more likely than not) a Necessary Being.

---

Here's how. It is not necessary that every concrete thing is included in a chain of causes that is both infinite and ungrounded (by your report). Therefore, it is possible for there to be a concrete thing that has no cause, either because it is a first member of a finite chain of causes or because it causally grounds, at least in part, a chain of all causes (other than itself).

Now as a rule of thumb, contingent things generally have a cause, or are more likely than not to have a cause (by your report). Therefore, you have a reason to think that a concrete thing that has not been caused to exist is (likely) not contingent; it is instead something that must (by nature) exist. Therefore, since it is possible for there to be a concrete thing that has not been caused to exist (as just shown), you now have a reason to think it is (likely) possible for there to be a Necessary Being.

Therefore, since we stipulated that a thing that must, by nature, exist is something that would automatically exist were it possible for it to exist, it follows that there actually is something that must (by nature) exist, which is capable of causing something. In other words, there is a Necessary Being.

I recognize that you may have counter-reasons that defeat this implication.

---

Which I will consider a small victory for the anti-necessary being crowd.
Modal logic is tricky. Especially with necessary beings eating up all the 'possible' operators

If you can't prove existence itself is necessary how can you hope to prove a being must necessarily exist?
Without the assumption existence is necessary you can't make the claim a being can necessarily exist.

If he proves there is a necessary being, he has proven that something must necessarily exist. It's not like you have to prove A by itself before proving B just because A is a weaker statement than B.

That'd be like me saying flight doesn't have to be necessary but someone necessarily needs to fly flies. Claiming the latter must assume the former.

Which is why a proof of the latter also proves the former

[Whateverist]

What the hell is a "necessary being"? What a screwy idea. Perhaps a doctor at an emergency room is pretty necessary. A new born baby with a naval is a strong indication that a mother was necessary.

But necessary as in a creator god to account for there being something instead of nothing? Bunk. If somethingness necessitates a creator then that creator all the more necessarily requires a creator, and so on.

Are there also "optional beings"? There's a club I don't want to join.

[Kayenneh]

Clive, I don't understand why you're so concerned about the 'logic' part, when it's clear that the survey is a poorly made one. It's too narrow, the definitions are off and the maker's intent shines right through. Bad survey is bad.